I need a Publisher

Need a publisher

Do you still need a publisher in a digital, multi-channel world where you can communicate directly with your audience? These are the questions you should consider before signing. You' already own all your publishing rights right from the start. Do I need a publisher? - as songwriters, how do you decide whether you need a publisher or not?

Writers need publishers....or do they?

It' s hard to underestimate the value of conventional publishing houses. WELLINGTON, NZ: During a recent publishing futures meeting, the debate affected the overall policy view of the absolute copyrights movements. The policy advocacy group claims that copyrights and the publishing houses struggling to maintain them stand in the way of a mere stream of author to author creative activity on the web.

I' ve overheard several concerned editors around me asking:'What is our value as a publisher? It' s important because I fear that we will loose the publication mechanisms that made it possible for the authors to become a group. Initially, the publisher were mainly benefactors - folks who sponsor a novelist they liked.

You had the cash and the power to release the writer's work and could argue with powerful individuals who could buy a copy of the work for their own private lib. Creativity (sculptors, artists, writers) were totally at the mercy of their patron. Because they were classy, they did not invest in a creatively-minded man - they were so wealthy that they did not have to earn an incomes.

Just showing their supreme judgement, they surrounded themselves with artist and works of art that are unparalleled in their home. A publisher was sometimes a press operator or other mayor who found a writer's work so precious that it should be made public to future generations. Then they launched a publicity drive to collect money for the publication of a novelist (Shakespeare's works were born this way - after his death).

A few hundred years forward and we can see the heritage of this sponsorship in our publisher business. Publishers make advance payments to authors who have been designated by their writers or agencies. It accepts handwritten works, shines them, creates and publishes them as a book and then invests in publicity and promotional activities to maximise conversion.

A publisher has to make a return on its investments in new publications, but it is a success or a failure - many publications make a drop, with few good ones making a major contribution to reinvestment revenues. What makes this leveraged management system unique is that it gives editors the most restricted stock option available in the market.

In contrast to an angelic investors who require a significant share of the trademark to be constructed, a publisher usually only receives the licence for the actual work and sometimes a handfull of later work. If an author becomes a bestseller trademark and chooses to trade publishers or directly market through Amazon or iTunes, the initial publisher who stood up for the author is eligible for nothing other than the remainder of his work.

Every year millions of US Dollar flow into the pocket of authors and their representatives in the shape of advance payments and bonuses. When the overall fees make up 10% of a publisher's expenses, then editorial, production, sales and sales make up the other part. That can be 70-85% of the net selling rate via a self-publishing plattform - in comparison to 6-25% with a conventional publisher.

It' s hard to underestimate the value of conventional publishing houses. Neither does a straightforward percentage comparisons take into consideration the publishers' initial investments. In view of the number of publisher value assaults (I scored six before breakfasts this morning), I find it interesting that so few authors give up their current work.

And I think the cause is a secret but much appreciated services offered by conventional publishing houses - acknowledgement. Each author has a shortlist of "dream publishers" who would give him credit (and status). Most of them are compelled to go a little deeper and are usually happy when a publishing house takes up their work.

Getting released by a small publisher is kind of chill. As less than 1 in 200 submissions is ever approved for release, it is a sign of approval by any publisher. A very small proportion of the papers adopted for public access leave a fierce rush of angry authors bringing their voice to the anti-publishing world.

It is more likely that the disappointed (but excellent) authors who post e-books themselves will be found by humans on there. Another of the reasons for being loyal to publishing houses (and agents) is the kind of emotive help and the kind of feed-back authors need. Almost every publisher and executive (and executive who has been the author's producer) has a tale about the exceptional assistance he has given to a author during the war.

It is a response for publishing houses that are concerned about whether their performance promise is powerful enough to live in the market. Authors really need the help of publishing houses - creative and financial, and a publisher's trademark is an important means of recognizing authors, especially in the communities with which the author is identified.

Ensuring that your publisher stays important to your fellowship, that you have an interest in honesty, are open to inventive ideas and support your authors (awards wouldn't hurt) is crucial to you. Which is the best thing a publisher does for an writer?

Mehr zum Thema